• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Economist on Republican Tax

2 issues:

Saying "his" policies like he has any input on these. Does anyone actually believe he is helping with the legislation? My personal opinion is that he is simply repeating the talking points they give him. I highly doubt he has much if any influence in the writing of any of these bills, if he was involved in it he would be more proactive in pushing for it rather tham simply tweeting Congress needs to get it together then moving on.

2nd, his point about the poor and middle class not recieving tax cuts is false, WaPo gave 4 Pinocchios to democrats making that same claim already.

No matter how impotent he is to influence the plan, he will be responsible for the bill if and when he chooses to sign it into law.

I have seen no indications that the White House is pushing against these complaints for the sake of populism.
 
No matter how impotent he is to influence the plan, he will be responsible for the bill if and when he chooses to sign it into law.

I have seen no indications that the White House is pushing against these complaints for the sake of populism.

I don't disagree, I just find it funny that people would think he actually played any part of the legislation. We should all hope that he doesn't.
 
The only person to make Congress get fiscally responsible was Bill Clinton. Barack Obama had no chance to get fiscally responsible with the economic crisis he was handed by G W Bush.

Now they want to venture further into the ramifications of fiscal irresponsibility.

Partisans need to pick a position on federal spending/national debt and stick with it. Each side's partisan loyalists have no concept of whether they actually think the federal government needs to be fiscally conservative or not. It utterly depends on who's in the Oval Office.

Nonsense, the asset bubbles burst because of Bush and his tax cuts

Dumbest thing I've read in weeks.
 
I don't disagree, I just find it funny that people would think he actually played any part of the legislation. We should all hope that he doesn't.

True. Though it's somewhat salient to note that he isn't fighting for working class Americans when it comes to this tax bill insofar as it throws his campaign promises to fight for the working class into question.
 
OC, its just not honest to cling to a narrative that requires you to ignore that Clinton raised taxes on the top bracket. Its just not honest for you to ignore that the deficit went down under Clinton and Obama. Its just not honest to ignore that the deficits shot up under Reagan and Bush. Its why I get to say that when it comes time for conservatives to choose narrative or integrity they choose narrative. Its a simple concept OC, if you have to lie to push your agenda, there is something wrong with your agenda.

He raised taxes on everyone and spending reductions were not on his agenda, he did sign them, though.

The rest of your post is propagandized poo, as usual.
 
Ah Trump, so concerned about revising taxes, and yet he still won't make his tax returns public. Ah, the irony.

As Will Rogers said many years ago, when the republicans are in the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. That has not changed.
 
I don't disagree, I just find it funny that people would think he actually played any part of the legislation. We should all hope that he doesn't.

Why wouldn't he? It's a normal thing for the POTUS to propose tax reform and a cooperative Congress to work with him to get that done.

And at least for a while there was a "Gang of Six" working on tax reform and it included members of Trump's team.

Hatch: GOP's 'Big Six' will not dictate committee tax reform work | TheHill

The Big Six consists of Hatch, other House and Senate GOP leaders, and members of President Trump's economic team. The group is planning to release a tax-reform framework document during the week of Sept. 25.

Obviously the House can and did write its own bill, but it was largely, from what I've heard, along the big lines established by this "Gang of Six."
 
He raised taxes on everyone and spending reductions were not on his agenda, he did sign them, though.

The rest of your post is propagandized poo, as usual.

Oh OC, see how you want to play word games to cling to your false narrative. You said

"Bill Clinton found fiscal responsibility due to his triangulation strategy in order to get re-elected"

I pointed out he raised rich people's taxes from the start which you were trying to avoid so Magic presto he "raised taxes on everyone". I guess you could argue that maybe a gas tax is on everyone but we're talking income taxes and that was only on upper bracket. So sorry, your obfuscation failed. Now on to the next part of your dishonest agenda. You changed "fiscal responsibility" to "spending reductions ". So not only were you trying to "massage" your dishonest narrative, you're still wrong. Deficit reduction and spending reductions were on his agenda from the start. No "triangulation" necessary.


The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, better known as the Deficit Reduction Act of 1993, was President Bill Clinton’s first budget. The fiscal year 1994 budget proposed the highest peace-time tax increases (on high income earners) in United States history, cut appropriations spending, and renewed the framework of the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990.

1993 Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act - Timeline - Slaying the Dragon of Debt - Regional Oral History Office - University of California, Berkeley

Not that you care about the truth, your narratives are more important, but republicans gleefully predicted a double dip recession. Yea, we got the opposite. So it seems republicans and their obedient base have always been wrong about the economy. OC, if you truly cared about deficits instead of your agenda, you'd vote democrat. Deficits shoot up under republicans and down under Democrats.
 
Oh OC, see how you want to play word games to cling to your false narrative. You said

"Bill Clinton found fiscal responsibility due to his triangulation strategy in order to get re-elected"

I pointed out he raised rich people's taxes from the start which you were trying to avoid so Magic presto he "raised taxes on everyone". I guess you could argue that maybe a gas tax is on everyone but we're talking income taxes and that was only on upper bracket. So sorry, your obfuscation failed. Now on to the next part of your dishonest agenda. You changed "fiscal responsibility" to "spending reductions ". So not only were you trying to "massage" your dishonest narrative, you're still wrong. Deficit reduction and spending reductions were on his agenda from the start. No "triangulation" necessary.


The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, better known as the Deficit Reduction Act of 1993, was President Bill Clinton’s first budget. The fiscal year 1994 budget proposed the highest peace-time tax increases (on high income earners) in United States history, cut appropriations spending, and renewed the framework of the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990.

1993 Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act - Timeline - Slaying the Dragon of Debt - Regional Oral History Office - University of California, Berkeley

Not that you care about the truth, your narratives are more important, but republicans gleefully predicted a double dip recession. Yea, we got the opposite. So it seems republicans and their obedient base have always been wrong about the economy. OC, if you truly cared about deficits instead of your agenda, you'd vote democrat. Deficits shoot up under republicans and down under Democrats.

Things are never quite as you portray them.

The Biggest Tax Increase in History

The only spending Clinton cut from 93 to 94 was Defense and Education. Total Appropriations increased from 93 to 94.

https://www.usgovernmentspending.com/federal_budget_detail_1998bs22017n_
 
Things are never quite as you portray them.

The Biggest Tax Increase in History

The only spending Clinton cut from 93 to 94 was Defense and Education. Total Appropriations increased from 93 to 94.

https://www.usgovernmentspending.com/federal_budget_detail_1998bs22017n_

Everyone always asserts that their foes raised taxes "the biggest in history." It's always misleading. Top tax-rates under Ike were 91%; under Kennedy 70%; under Reagan 50% -- and somehow, Clinton raising top rates to 39% is The Biggest Tax Increase in History!

On spending, it seems Clinton did keep real spending under control:

usgs_line.php
 
Everyone always asserts that their foes raised taxes "the biggest in history." It's always misleading. Top tax-rates under Ike were 91%; under Kennedy 70%; under Reagan 50% -- and somehow, Clinton raising top rates to 39% is The Biggest Tax Increase in History!

On spending, it seems Clinton did keep real spending under control:

usgs_line.php

The tax increase under Clinton was large, that was link I used.

As for spending, someone else is asserting spending was cut, not controlled. It was not cut, it increased and that's where my argument ends.
 
Things are never quite as you portray them.

The Biggest Tax Increase in History

The only spending Clinton cut from 93 to 94 was Defense and Education. Total Appropriations increased from 93 to 94.

https://www.usgovernmentspending.com/federal_budget_detail_1998bs22017n_

And out comes the deflecting (and of course dishonest) retort. We were not discussing whether it was the biggest tax increase in history. We were discussing who Clinton raised taxes on and your false narrative that “fiscal responsibility” was forced on him. And don’t forget, you tried to massage it from “fiscal responsibility” to “spending reductions”. That’s dishonest all by itself. Its just a bonus that you were still wrong when even after you dishonestly “massaged” it to “spending reductions.” Read this slowly, nothing can change the fact that deficits shoot up under republicans and go down under democrats.

And OC, thank you for pointing out that spending increased on a nominal basis from 93 to 94. Spending goes up every year on a nominal basis. But spending went down in 94 as a % of GDP. And it went down as a % of GDP almost every year under Clinton. Its how Clinton was able to reduce the massive republican deficits and still grow the economy. You just don’t get to post “nominal spending went up” to attack spending reductions unless you’re dumb or dishonest. Don’t worry, I don't think you’re dumb.

Sorry OC, there’s no magic phrase or vague retort that can change the fact that deficits shoot up under republicans and go down under democrats. You’re simply proving my point perfectly that when it comes time to choose narrative or integrity, conservatives choose narrative. And OC, if you hit reply, reply to what I posted not what you wish I posted.
 
The tax increase under Clinton was large, that was link I used.

As for spending, someone else is asserting spending was cut, not controlled. It was not cut, it increased and that's where my argument ends.

Spending really can't be "cut" as the nation continues to get larger and older. You can, however, slow the rate of increase to less than GDP growth, thus cutting spending as a function of GDP. If your graph used a different Y-axis, you probably would see a slowing in the rate of increase.
 
And out comes the deflecting (and of course dishonest) retort. We were not discussing whether it was the biggest tax increase in history. We were discussing who Clinton raised taxes on and your false narrative that “fiscal responsibility” was forced on him. And don’t forget, you tried to massage it from “fiscal responsibility” to “spending reductions”. That’s dishonest all by itself. Its just a bonus that you were still wrong when even after you dishonestly “massaged” it to “spending reductions.” Read this slowly, nothing can change the fact that deficits shoot up under republicans and go down under democrats.

And OC, thank you for pointing out that spending increased on a nominal basis from 93 to 94. Spending goes up every year on a nominal basis. But spending went down in 94 as a % of GDP. And it went down as a % of GDP almost every year under Clinton. Its how Clinton was able to reduce the massive republican deficits and still grow the economy. You just don’t get to post “nominal spending went up” to attack spending reductions unless you’re dumb or dishonest. Don’t worry, I don't think you’re dumb.

Sorry OC, there’s no magic phrase or vague retort that can change the fact that deficits shoot up under republicans and go down under democrats. You’re simply proving my point perfectly that when it comes time to choose narrative or integrity, conservatives choose narrative. And OC, if you hit reply, reply to what I posted not what you wish I posted.

Short on facts, long on snark, as usual and as expected. Learn how to play nice with others Vern.
 
Spending really can't be "cut" as the nation continues to get larger and older. You can, however, slow the rate of increase to less than GDP growth, thus cutting spending as a function of GDP. If your graph used a different Y-axis, you probably would see a slowing in the rate of increase.

Really? Defense spending was cut. Education was cut.
 
That is exactly why it is poor thinking to take a c.p. approach to economic matters to judge in stead as guide to policies. Here the judgement should not be "Bad!". It should be "How do we reduce spending?".

If I am debt, I do not cut my income and hope for a sunny day to stay solvent.
 
Really? Defense spending was cut. Education was cut.

Individual line items, programs and some departments can be cut, but, the point is that the general budget infrastructure can not be (at least from a practical sense). You post a graph of TOTAL spend. That is what I responded. Its pretty hard to cut TOTAL spend as much of it is tied to the size and aging of the overall economy.

In that regard, spending has been dropping steadily since 2009. It also dropped steadily during the Clinton administration. Interesting coincidence, don't you think? Damn democrats always cutting the Republican fun....Spending to GDP.png
 
Last edited:
That is exactly why it is poor thinking to take a c.p. approach to economic matters to judge in stead as guide to policies. Here the judgement should not be "Bad!". It should be "How do we reduce spending?".

Start with get the budget in order --- revenues = expenses. When revenues begin to exceed expenses, that is when you think about tax cuts.
 
Individual line items, programs and some departments can be cut, but, the point is that the general budget infrastructure can not be (at least from a practical sense). You post a graph of TOTAL spend. That is what I responded. Its pretty hard to cut TOTAL spend as much of it is tied to the size and aging of the overall economy.

In that regard, spending has been dropping steadily since 2009. It also dropped steadily during the Clinton administration. Interesting coincidence, don't you think? Damn democrats always cutting the Republican fun....View attachment 67224722

Actually the link I posted earlier had a chart that showed spending broken down by type. You posted total spend, not me.

We will never know how hard it is to cut total spending. We have never tried.
 
Short on facts, long on snark, as usual and as expected. Learn how to play nice with others Vern.

Oh OC, what a sad post. Your dishonest deflection didn’t work so now you feign umbrage as an excuse to cut and run. And of course you do it dishonestly. Anyhoo, you had a dishonest agenda to not give credit to President Clinton for reducing the republican deficits he inherited. I posted the actual facts to prove your narrative false and dishonest. Here’s some of the facts you learned in my replies to you thus proving your “short on facts” claim was just more dishonesty

  • Deficit reduction and spending reduction were in President Clinton’s agenda from the start
  • President Clinton raised taxes on the top bracket
  • Spending is measured as a % of GDP
  • It’s not intelligent or honest to pretend spending has to go down on a nominal basis to be a cut
  • Republicans claimed his tax increases would cause a double dip
  • Republicans and obedient conservaitves are always wrong about their economic predictions
  • Deficits shoot up under republicans
  • Deficits go down under democrats

You simply cant respond to the facts so you have to dishonestly deflect, feign umbrage and cut and run. Your conservative masters appreciate your obedience. So whenever you are willing to have an honest and intelligent discussion of the facts, come on back.
 
Oh OC, what a sad post. Your dishonest deflection didn’t work so now you feign umbrage as an excuse to cut and run.
Vern, quit posting so much snark. Make a point based on facts and leave the bull**** behind, if you can.

And of course you do it dishonestly. Anyhoo, you had a dishonest agenda to not give credit to President Clinton for reducing the republican deficits he inherited. I posted the actual facts to prove your narrative false and dishonest. Here’s some of the facts you learned in my replies to you thus proving your “short on facts” claim was just more dishonesty

The only thing he cut during his tenure was defense spending, he used the peace dividend.


[*]Deficit reduction and spending reduction were in President Clinton’s agenda from the start
A Tax increase was on his agenda from the start, after the midterms, he couldn't get spending increases he wanted. Triangulation is born.
[*]President Clinton raised taxes on the top bracket
He raised taxes on EVERYONE.
[*]Spending is measured as a % of GDP
Spending is measured in $'s as well.
[*]It’s not intelligent or honest to pretend spending has to go down on a nominal basis to be a cut
Liberal spending talking point. If you lower the rate of growth, its a cut, if you lower actual spending, its defense spending.
[*]Republicans claimed his tax increases would cause a double dip
I didn't. So pull something out of thin air.
[*]Republicans and obedient conservaitves are always wrong about their economic predictions
"Always", false on its face. Whose lying now?
[*]Deficits shoot up under republicans
[*]Deficits go down under democrats
[*]

Entirely depends on how you manipulate the numbers as I have seen graphs for each direction.


You simply cant respond to the facts so you have to dishonestly deflect, feign umbrage and cut and run. Your conservative masters appreciate your obedience. So whenever you are willing to have an honest and intelligent discussion of the facts, come on back.

Blah, blah, blah, snarky, partisan bs disguised as a paragraph. Discussing anything with you is poisonous because you cant discuss facts without constant putdowns and accusations of partisanship and lying. Get a grip, better yet, get some manners.
 
A Tax increase was on his agenda from the start, after the midterms, he couldn't get spending increases he wanted. Triangulation is born
...
Entirely depends on how you manipulate the numbers as I have seen graphs for each direction.

OC, your dishonesty continues. you’ve been obediently not trying to give President Clinton credit for “fiscal responsibility.” You claimed it was forced on him. I’ve proven reducing the republican deficits were on his agenda from Day 1. You tried to massage “fiscal responsibility” to “reduce spending”. He did that too. You have flailed and deflected non-stop since I’ve proven “fiscal responsibility” was on President Clinton’s agenda from Day 1. You have a dishonest agenda so you’ve ignored the facts I’ve posted. And now you are hilariously flailing at the fact that deficits shoot up under republicans and go down under democrats. Again, you prove when it comes time to choose narrative or integrity, conservatives choose narrative.

When will you put America ahead of your dishonest partisan agenda?
 
Last edited:
Getting back to today's tax plan, instead of the one over 20 years ago, the bill is a dud for the middle-class -- which is absurd, since the bill's label on the front says "Middle-Class Tax Cut."

But, if you look at the ingredients on the back of the tax-cut box and read the small print, the first ingredient is "reduce taxes on the wealthy." The second ingredient is "tax increases on the middle-class." Ingredient three: "An increase in the deficit."
 
Lets face it, the one good thing about Bill was his fiscal responsibility. Bush pretty much ensured that every president for the next 6 - 8 seats would be stuck with cleaning up his "little" mishap. Barring some sort of massive economical boom at least, and we have yet to get a glimpse of such an event happening.

If you think Bush's "mishap" is taking a long time to clean up, just wait until the mess from what Trump and this current congress are doing starts to kick in: from the tariffs to the tax cuts to the looming disasters of the environmental policies to cutting trade and diplomatic relations with our closest allies and trading partners, it's a catastrophe brewing to hit us with full force.

:hitsfan:

But that's OK. I am sure we will have some democrats somewhere, either the whitehouse or congress, that it can all get blamed on.
 
Last edited:
Getting back to today's tax plan, instead of the one over 20 years ago, the bill is a dud for the middle-class -- which is absurd, since the bill's label on the front says "Middle-Class Tax Cut."

But, if you look at the ingredients on the back of the tax-cut box and read the small print, the first ingredient is "reduce taxes on the wealthy." The second ingredient is "tax increases on the middle-class." Ingredient three: "An increase in the deficit."

Trump just said that he is going to pass another tax cut now. For the middle class. And he is going to introduce it to congress in early November, just in time for midterm elections.

So basically he is saying the last "middle class tax cut" wasn't really a middle class tax cut (because it just turned out to be a cut for the large corporations). So now...noooowwww.... he is going to introduce his big, beautiful middle class tax cut.

Just in time for when congress is not even in session!:2funny:

Who does he think he is fooling? A bunch of idiots?

Wait, don't answer that. The answer is: apparently yes. And it's working. That's what's so sad.
 
Back
Top Bottom